Why did Brigham Young believe Adam was God?

[_Jason Bourne]

Simple answer. Because you are wrong. BY taught Adam was God. Not Adam Sr.

The simple answer is that you're cherry-picking and not taking everything BY stated into account. For example:

I am no more Cherry picking than you are. But the simple answer is a lot of people thought BY was off his rocker with this one. That is why he said at one point he did not care if someone believed it or not and then he went on to make comments along the more traditional line.

How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather; and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind, in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys, as our gardens are to our wives and children, or as the road to the Western Ocean is to the experienced traveller. [JD 9:149]

Like BRM said, BY contradicted BY.

That is why the only theory that makes sense is the one that has BY using Adam as a name title because God the Father IS acting like an "Adam" by coming to a world with His wife to procreate the Adam and Eve who fell. And thus you have an Adam Sr. and Adam Jr regardless of whether BY used those terms or not.

But you utterly fail to show why nobody who heard him teach this understood it that way. The Orson Pratt problem you know. And you fail to show why after he died the AG teachings were quickly swept under the rug.

And you failed to show why we should expect consistency since consistency was not a hallmark of early LDS Church theological development.

[_bcspace]

Like BRM said, BY contradicted BY.

Unless he was using Adam as a name title which seems more plausible than rejecting doctrine or making obvious contradictions. I know you prefer it to look that way to satisfy the cynical apostate within, but base emotion does not the truth make.

[_Jason Bourne]

Unless he was using Adam as a name title which seems more plausible than rejecting doctrine or making obvious contradictions.

I see you continue to ignore the plain evidence that those who were alive and heard BY teach it understood it the way I and others do and not the the way you attempt to over lay on it.

I know you prefer it to look that way to satisfy the cynical apostate within, but base emotion does not the truth make.

And I know you need to play mental gymnastics to keep your testimony intact.


But o, I really wish it were they way you say or that BY had not taught false doctrine that the Church now rejects. As noted I did what you are doing for some time but intellectual honesty would no longer allow me to do so.

[_bcspace]

Unless he was using Adam as a name title which seems more plausible than rejecting doctrine or making obvious contradictions.

I see you continue to ignore the plain evidence that those who were alive and heard BY teach it understood it the way I and others do

Yes, as I noted before, it seems for more likely that BY was not trying to contradict himself or run roughshod over critical doctrines.

[_Runtu]

But o, I really wish it were they way you say or that BY had not taught false doctrine that the Church now rejects. As noted I did what you are doing for some time but intellectual honesty would no longer allow me to do so.

I couldn't do it, either. It's like juggling: eventually you can't keep it up, and the balls fall. How other people manage to keep going long term is mystifying.

[_Themis]

I see you continue to ignore the plain evidence that those who were alive and heard BY teach it understood it the way I and others do and not the the way you attempt to over lay on it.


And I know you need to play mental gymnastics to keep your testimony intact.

Are you really surprised? :)

It's refreshing to see a few believing posters like consig who are intellectually honest, instead of what we get with people like bcspace, droppy, etc.

[_Darth J]

What I am enjoying the most about this thread is the compelling case that is being made to believe that Brigham Young was an inspired prophet of God.

[_hatersinmyward]

Why did Brigham Young believe Adam was God?

To keep their Stolen Masonic Rituals in context.

[_consiglieri]

What I am enjoying the most about this thread is the compelling case that is being made to believe that Brigham Young was an inspired prophet of God.

I think this is the problem with BC's position on Adam-God coupled with his position on doctrine.

He gets himself backed into a corner where he has to argue nonsense in order to keep alive his rigid belief system.

If "doctrine" can change, and if a prophet doesn't have to be in agreement with every other prophet in order to still be a prophet, the problem disappears.

The only way "doctrine" cannot change is if we think we have all the answers. We don't. Nobody does. And lots of what we do have is probably wrong.

When knowledge increases in any sphere, it will frequently do so only by overturning previously cherished ideas.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Runtu]

I think this is the problem with BC's position on Adam-God coupled with his position on doctrine.

He gets himself backed into a corner where he has to argue nonsense in order to keep alive his rigid belief system.

Yep, but in his view, this is called "victory." If I really disliked the church, I would encourage this kind of nonsensical defense because it really does put a glaring spotlight on the problems. I respect those who can honestly say, "I don't know, but I have a testimony." That is a much more honest answer than the wordplay and nonsense we're seeing.

If "doctrine" can change, and if a prophet doesn't have to be in agreement with every other prophet in order to still be a prophet, the problem disappears.

I think this is the problem with the priesthood ban, too. If a prophet can be a prophet and still make mistakes, the problem goes away. The problem persists when people cannot imagine mistakes being made, so they defend everything, again, making the church look really bad in the process.

The only way "doctrine" cannot change is if we think we have all the answers. We don't. Nobody does. And lots of what we do have is probably wrong.

When knowledge increases in any sphere, it will frequently do so only by overturning previously cherished ideas.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well said. It may surprise some people to hear this, but one of the things I really admire about Joseph Smith was his willingness to change his mind, to adapt to new information. Heck, he even rewrote revealed scripture; the notion that official doctrine is set in stone until the correlation committee changes its view is a product of the modern church.